Thread regarding IBM layoffs

After an Epic Fall, IBM Faces a Long Road Back to Relevance

The most amusing part of the article is the premise itself that IBM can re-achieve any sort of relevance after this decimation.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/ibm-stock-price-fall-sell-87657335

The blue chip’s biggest wipeout on record will force the company to reinvent itself—again.

By Mackenzie Tatananni |
Updated July 17, 2026, 4:27 pm EDT / Original July 17, 2026, 1:00 am EDT

IBM has been forced to reinvent itself many times in the past. After its biggest wipeout on record this past week, it will have to do so again.

Big Blue had been riding high. Yes, there were problems in consulting, as signaled by Accenture’s woes, and in software, tipped off by weakness in ServiceNow and its sector peers. But the stock was trading at an all-time high as recently as June 2 as investors looked at the company’s near-monopoly in mainframe computing, its quantum computing effort, and its prospects as an artificial-intelligence winner.

They were wrong. IBM stock tumbled 25% this past Tuesday, its worst single-day drop on record, following a rare pre-announcement of its quarterly results. Such a move is highly unusual for the company, which is traditionally disciplined when it comes to financial reporting. The last time IBM pre-announced earnings was in October 2008, in an effort to reassure investors it was on track to meet targets during the global financial crisis.

Investors faced a different reality this time around, as IBM posted second-quarter earnings and revenue that missed Wall Street forecasts. While there were plenty of problems—slowing software and consulting sales, a massive reallocation of technology spending by its customers to chips, servers, and other AI needs—the biggest drag on the company’s performance was its infrastructure business. That includes its legacy mainframes—the massive computers enterprises like banks and credit-card networks rely on to process billions of calculations and transactions in real time.

Big Blue is undoubtedly the dominant force in this space. A 2022 study by Celent, commissioned by IBM, found its Z Mainframe Servers line processed more than half of the world’s transactions by value. But that didn’t help the division’s performance during the second quarter. Infrastructure revenue fell, as expected, but the 7% decline was significantly faster and harder than IBM had anticipated. Not only did fewer companies buy the actual mainframe hardware, they also bought less of the high-margin software required for tasks like banking and credit-card payments.

CEO Arvind Krishna attributed the results to poor execution. “We did not adapt and move quickly enough, and numerous large deals failed to close on the timelines we expected, driving the majority of our shortfall,” he wrote in a letter to shareholders.

The 25% drop was massive—and partly justified, even as it erased nearly $70 billion in market capitalization. “The stock had become a crowded AI infrastructure winner and was trading near all-time highs, so any sign of execution issues was going to get punished,” says Dan O’Regan, managing director of equity trading at Mizuho Securities. “That said, a move of this magnitude suggests the market is now pricing in a much more prolonged slowdown than what management has implied.”

It didn’t help that analysts had set high expectations heading into the print. Morgan Stanley, for one, had predicted upside in infrastructure and software that was already priced into the stock. Oppenheimer, which downgraded the stock on Wednesday, had anticipated “no surprises in business trajectory,” making the sudden pre-announcement a true blindside.

Analysts were quick to move to the sidelines following IBM’s earnings miss, asserting that Big Blue would have to lean on major acquisitions or close deals that slipped past the quarter’s deadline to recover lost ground. Now Oppenheimer is questioning the company’s ability to achieve double-digit software revenue growth through 2027. The 5% growth in the latest quarter was sharply below the firm’s 12% estimate.

The bigger issue might be whether IBM’s infrastructure business itself is being disrupted. Even before Tuesday’s plunge, IBM stock had been lagging behind the broader market after stumbling earlier in the year as fears of AI disruption began to take hold. One of the most significant drops occurred in February, when AI start-up Anthropic unveiled a COBOL modernization playbook for its Claude Code tool, claiming it could dramatically streamline updates to the outdated programming language that runs on IBM mainframes. Historically, the immense complexity and cost of migrating off these systems protected IBM’s highly profitable mainframe business—a protective moat AI now threatens to dissolve.

IBM stock closed on Wednesday at 16.54 times 12-month forward earnings, its lowest price/earnings ratio since June 2024. But that says less about where IBM is now than where it was before. As recently as June 2, the stock was trading for more than 25 times, above the S&P 500’s 21.52—a premium valuation that might not have been deserved.

“Lower prices make an asset more attractive,” BNP Paribas analyst Stefan Slowinski says. “I just caution investors that, out of all the companies I cover, IBM probably has the lowest organic growth currently and the lowest organic growth outlook. That needs to be reflected in the valuation.”

Shares plunged 26% by Friday’s close, capping off their worst week in history. As tempting as it may be to scoop them up after such a tumble, IBM still has a lot of work to do.

In the worst-case scenario, investors fear that IBM’s enterprise clients—massive businesses with sprawling IT setups—are redirecting their budgets toward AI instead of Big Blue’s traditional offerings. At best, the company was simply caught off guard by a sudden capital expenditure shift, as Krishna asserted, and can reclaim that lost ground in coming quarters.

Slowinski is one of the most bearish voices on the Street, rating the stock at Underperform. “IBM’s strategy is to use its cash flow to acquire higher-growth software assets in order to improve its growth profile,” he says. “But it has a business in consulting, in software, in mainframe, where all of them are low-single-digit organic growers. And the prospects of that improving organically is very slim.”

As Mizuho’s O’Regan sees it, the setup from here depends less on the AI narrative and more on management proving it can consistently execute.

“The market wants proof that this is an execution stumble, not the beginning of a structural slowdown in demand,” O’Regan explains. “As a stock, the days of getting the benefit of the doubt are probably over for now.”

At least until the next metamorphosis begins to take shape.


by
| 997 views | | 14 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kxt353tj

14 replies (most recent on top)

@dm exactly this. As a company, we’re remarkably unaware and lack self awareness of how we’re perceived by everyone else. We very much like the smell of our own farts

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gc+1kxt353tj

@az
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐃𝐎𝐍’𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐓𝐎 𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐖.

Nothing. Literally nothing.

Why do I keep seeing this clickbaity headline everywhere?

Scientists are fundamentally incapable of keeping discoveries to themselves. We write papers, give talks, make videos, and spend entire conferences explaining our research to anyone who will listen (and sometimes to people who won’t!!).
The entire scientific process is basically built around yelling, “Wait, look what we found!". Careers are made by publishing results and trying to convince everyone else that your tiny corner of the universe is the most interesting thing on Earth.

So the next time you see a headline that says, “Scientists don’t want you to know this one secret,” please know that whatever follows is almost certainly hogwash.

Scientists don't keep secrets (on purpose). We turn them into incomprehensible papers and then beg people to read them

Unironically posted by another IBMer on LinkedIn… but didn’t we just go through an onslaught of clickbait about quantum and sub-nanometer breakthroughs only a few weeks ago that we generated ourselves?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dm+1kxt353tj

@bm At a market level, I agree. But until 2022 I had an amazing career at IBM and was able to do innovative work - even though that was always an uphill battle with the executives who treated all innovation like a vampire would garlic. With enough effort, vision, and storytelling I could get maybe half my ideas implemented or out the door.

But starting 2022, Arvind got his marching orders to increase the stock price at any cost. From then on, I saw my team cut every year until over 90% were cut after three years and every idea I had was shot down even after demonstrating it was actually cheaper than doing nothing. My jackarse "PO" would routinely deride my ideas as "old" even though the issues were still valid and they had nothing better.

The worst possible VPs became my VPs, and they carried the banner of mediocrity forward, surrounding themselves with Yes Men - the Matt Loathsomes, the Swill Fourribles.

What was always difficult became insufferable. The IBM I knew was now dead. When the end came, I felt like I was being put out of my misery because IBM was no longer a place where high achievement was valued, only blind obedience and compliance to mediocrity as their core aesthetic.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bs+1kxt353tj

IBM has not been relevant for last two decades. So really it’s return to the thought that they think they are relevant again. Just look at last stock drop of 26% the rest of market didn’t even blink. No one cares at ibm anymore.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bm+1kxt353tj

Under Arvind, IBM only "reinvented itself" as a mediocre Indian-based company with the worst internal tools in which to run the company. Before Arvind, design and research and innovation mattered - now they are all endangered species. Arvind has done to IBM what RJK Jr did to the CDC - make everything that worked well work worse and utterly fail to do the right thing even once. Just to appease his base.

IBM is a just a Private Equity firm that practices autophagy with its own body and people; it raids other companies to create a semblance of life when in reality it has been hollowed out, its center dead. All you need to know about Arvind's IBM is to look at all of the abandoned IBM sites across the United States. There was never reinvention, only wisdomless appetite.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b9+1kxt353tj

@ax IBM reinvented its PowerPoints. LOL

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b4+1kxt353tj

@az
IBM executives do not value innovation.
At IBM, raw innovation is not rewarded. No incentives ...
Better find greener pastures.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b1+1kxt353tj

@ax Yes—IBM has become a masterclass in smoke and mirrors.

The quantum research is genuinely impressive science, but that’s different from having a large, sustainable business. Quantum computing has promising applications, yet many of today’s practical use cases remain specialized rather than broad commercial markets. How many nuclear fission customers are out there? 3-5?

The same goes for manufacturing. Despite all the excitement surrounding its former foundry business, IBM no longer operates a high-volume semiconductor fab. Announcements and research breakthroughs often generate headlines, but turning those into scalable products and meaningful revenue is a completely different challenge. They are creating Quantum Wafer Fab company that doesn’t own a fab. And 2 billion investment, if that money still exists after last week, isn’t going to cut it.

The recent “sub-nanometer” device announcements are another example. The work is technically interesting, but the terminology isn’t being used in the way most people associate with traditional process nodes. The headline creates one impression, while the technical reality is more nuanced.

For years, IBM has relied heavily on eye-catching announcements and ambitious messaging. The average joe investors appear to be looking beyond the headlines now and asking tougher questions about commercialization, execution, and long-term business value instead of just celebrating research milestones. They are catching on to the IBM’s antics and shenanigans.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @az+1kxt353tj

IBM did not reinvent itself over the last 2-3 years, all it did was reinvent its IMAGE (ie, LIE about its core business, claiming to be AI and Quantum rather than legacy mainframe and commodity services).

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ax+1kxt353tj

@aq yup this isn’t your granddaddy’s ibm. The sooner we accept it the better off we will be and sooner we can heal.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @as+1kxt353tj

IBM isn't coming back from this. The C-Suite is stuck on stoooo-pid and will continue down the same path of: Failure --> Blame employees -->PIPs and RA's --> Reorg to a more lean team (doing more work with less people) --> Failure. There's a reason why multiple IBMers who have always been top performers now find themselves in the bottom 15% - especially if they're older. The C-Suite needs a new sacrifice. Remember the old IBM CxO saying..."It's not our plan that failed. It's our little people's execution of our plan that failed."

IBM is a shthole. It doesn't have to be, but when you have failures in positions of leadership, you aren't going to be a great company.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aq+1kxt353tj

IBM still seems to think and behave like it’s the IBM of the 1960s through the 1980s. Who hasn’t experienced that old “IBM Blue” confidence—sometimes bordering on arrogance? The problem is that much of that reputation was built on the work and achievements of previous generations. Most of the people who created that legacy are long retired. Yet too many of today’s leaders carry themselves with the swagger as if they personally built that success and are entitled to the prestige and deference that came with it.

The more uncomfortable reality is that the rest of the industry no longer views IBM that way. While many inside the company still act like IBM is the dominant force everyone has to answer to, the market has moved on. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has grown to roughly an $808 billion market capitalization compared with IBM’s approximately $199 billion. Decades ago, those positions were effectively reversed. Broadcom is worth around $1.77 trillion. NVIDIA is around $4.74 trillion. The list keeps growing.

None of this diminishes IBM’s incredible history or the contributions it has made to computing. But history alone doesn’t command influence forever. Respect has to be earned continuously through execution, innovation, and results—not by relying on achievements from generations ago. Continuing to throw our weight around as if we’re still the unquestioned giant in the room is out of step with today’s reality, and frankly, it’s embarrassing.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ap+1kxt353tj

"a massive reallocation of technology spending by its customers to chips, servers, and other AI needs". That is a big lie as an excuse.
The real problem is the overall mismanagement and mediocrity.
IBM has very products left in toolbox to draw revenue.
IBM will go doing in history, as the company which missed most opportunities in the history of tech companies.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ag+1kxt353tj

Pure garbage.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @af+1kxt353tj

Post a reply

: